Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8738 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-26-2017 9:52 AM
409 online now:
Coyote, Dr Adequate, dwise1, Faith, frako, JonF, PaulK, Pressie, Stile, Theodoric, vimesey (11 members, 398 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,350 Year: 9,956/21,208 Month: 3,043/2,674 Week: 459/961 Day: 72/117 Hour: 6/13

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
30313233
34
35Next
Author Topic:   Are religions manmade and natural or supernaturally based?
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15767
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 496 of 511 (774731)
12-21-2015 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 491 by ICANT
12-14-2015 1:24 PM


If I understand what you are saying it is that the amount of useable energy will decrease as entropy takes it course during duration. At a point in the future all of the useable energy will be turned into un-useable energy at which time the universe will be dead.

Which is the reason that the universe requires a beginning to exist as it could not be infinite as the universe would already have reached the point of death.

If you will show your working, I will point out where the error is.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 491 by ICANT, posted 12-14-2015 1:24 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 497 by Admin, posted 12-21-2015 9:22 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12433
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 497 of 511 (774745)
12-21-2015 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 496 by Dr Adequate
12-21-2015 2:55 PM


Dr Adequate writes:

If you will show your working, I will point out where the error is.

I think ICANT (and me, too) might be helped by something specific about the problems you see in his last sentence.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 496 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-21-2015 2:55 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9439
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 498 of 511 (774747)
12-21-2015 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 492 by kbertsche
12-14-2015 2:59 PM


Yes, I think this is a good argument. The universe cannot be infinite either as a single universe, or as one occurrence in an infinite series of universes. Both concepts would have reached "heat death".

Really?

Let me pose a question. How was the old steady state (pre Big Bang) model supposed to have worked? Under that model, the universe was supposed to have been without any beginning and to possibly be infinitely old. Why was that model supported by people like Einstein only to be dropped based on evidence such as the cosmic background radiation remnant from the big bang.

I think the infinite time equals no usable energy logic ignores some scientific possibilities including the idea that some infinities are actually larger than others.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 492 by kbertsche, posted 12-14-2015 2:59 PM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 499 by kbertsche, posted 12-22-2015 2:19 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply
 Message 500 by Admin, posted 12-22-2015 7:50 AM NoNukes has responded

    
kbertsche
Member
Posts: 1359
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 499 of 511 (774751)
12-22-2015 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 498 by NoNukes
12-21-2015 10:45 PM


NoNukes writes:

kbertsche writes:

Yes, I think this is a good argument. The universe cannot be infinite either as a single universe, or as one occurrence in an infinite series of universes. Both concepts would have reached "heat death".


Really?

Let me pose a question. How was the old steady state (pre Big Bang) model supposed to have worked? Under that model, the universe was supposed to have been without any beginning and to possibly be infinitely old. Why was that model supported by people like Einstein only to be dropped based on evidence such as the cosmic background radiation remnant from the big bang.

I think the infinite time equals no usable energy logic ignores some scientific possibilities including the idea that some infinities are actually larger than others.


You ask a good question. How did the steady-state model deal with the second law and avoid heat death? I'm not sure. (a quick Google search turned up someone else asking the same question of a physics forum, with no good answers). Perhaps, as you suggest, the continual expansion of the universe helps to get around this problem. The steady-state universe is infinite in extent, but keeps getting bigger.

So perhaps my earlier statement was too broad. I was thinking mainly about the impossibility of an infinite "cyclic universe"; Richard Tolman in the 1930s showed that this was impossible because of the second law and heat death problem. But perhaps it COULD be possible for a steady-state universe to exist infinitely without heat death? At any rate, whether this is possible or not, we know that we do not live in such a universe.


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 498 by NoNukes, posted 12-21-2015 10:45 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12433
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 500 of 511 (774758)
12-22-2015 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 498 by NoNukes
12-21-2015 10:45 PM


Moderator Provided Information, a Question, and the Topic
NoNukes writes:

Why was that model supported by people like Einstein only to be dropped based on evidence such as the cosmic background radiation remnant from the big bang.

Einstein died nearly a decade before the discovery of the CMB in 1964. It was growing evidence of an expanding universe at the end of the 1920's that led him to drop the cosmological constant.

I think the infinite time equals no usable energy logic ignores some scientific possibilities including the idea that some infinities are actually larger than others.

A little more specificity about your meaning would be helpful. One guess I have is that you mean the infinite size of the universe could be greater than the infinite time, to the point that there will always be some usable energy somewhere. But that guess seems wrong since there's not space on the one hand and time on the other, but only spacetime.

Dr Adequate also addressed this issue, but I fear we may be losing the connection to the topic. Digressions onto poorly understood and easily confused topics are what often happens when pursuit of the main topic becomes difficult, and I'm hoping to prevent such digressions from swallowing the main topic. I was hoping this thread would address these questions (and I'm going to express this in very lay terms):

  • If everything has to be created by something already in existence, why isn't this also true of the supernatural being proposed as the creator of the universe?

  • How does the universe having a beginning imply the existence of a supernatural being?

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 498 by NoNukes, posted 12-21-2015 10:45 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 501 by NoNukes, posted 12-22-2015 9:39 AM Admin has responded
 Message 505 by ICANT, posted 12-23-2015 3:07 AM Admin has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9439
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 501 of 511 (774761)
12-22-2015 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 500 by Admin
12-22-2015 7:50 AM


Re: Moderator Provided Information, a Question, and the Topic
A little more specificity about your meaning would be helpful. One guess I have is that you mean the infinite size of the universe could be greater than the infinite time, to the point that there will always be some usable energy somewhere. But that guess seems wrong since there's not space on the one hand and time on the other, but only spacetime.

I take it that I am being requested to comment.

I am not expressing any such idea that infinite size beats infinite time. The steady state model involved an ongoing creation of matter/energy during the expansion of the universe. It is very simplistic to expect that after an infinite amount of time for dissipating energy that we would run out of energy given that model. But further, even absent that point, the argument given was too simplistic. Entropy increases during some processes, but simply changing the form of energy, say from kinetic to potential energy in a frictionless context, does not increase entropy.

In short the accounting principles that lead to the prediction that in infinite time the universe would have to reach heat death are just plain sloppy. If those arguments are to be supported I would request more detail about how that would work. Dr. Adequate was asking for the same thing.

The reason for mentioning Einstein or others who supported this model was to make the point that it was the CMB and not some simplistic application of the 1st or 2nd law of thermodynamics that did in the steady state model.

If everything has to be created by something already in existence, why isn't this also true of the supernatural being proposed as the creator of the universe?

Because supernatural stuff does not obey whatever laws you want to make. Proponents using this argument have a built in escape clause. Supernatural entities are not bound by any rules. They can be eternal without ever running out of usable energy.

How does the universe having a beginning imply the existence of a supernatural being?

Everything has a cause. The universe cannot have a natural cause because nothing natural preceded the universe. If something natural did predate the universe, then the principle applies to its precursor. But supernatural, eternal beings don't have to follow this principle.

Edited by NoNukes, : Tone down a bit


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 500 by Admin, posted 12-22-2015 7:50 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 502 by Admin, posted 12-22-2015 9:54 AM NoNukes has responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12433
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 502 of 511 (774762)
12-22-2015 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 501 by NoNukes
12-22-2015 9:39 AM


Re: Moderator Provided Information, a Question, and the Topic
NoNukes writes:

But apparently that silly stuff gets a free pass.

Not if I can help it.

Thanks for the additional details.

How does the universe having a beginning imply the existence of a supernatural being?

Surely we've heard enough of the 'existence beginning to exist' explanation not to ask to hear it again.

In my judgment there have been only non-answers and evasions so far.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 501 by NoNukes, posted 12-22-2015 9:39 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 503 by NoNukes, posted 12-22-2015 11:39 AM Admin has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9439
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 503 of 511 (774773)
12-22-2015 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 502 by Admin
12-22-2015 9:54 AM


Re: Moderator Provided Information, a Question, and the Topic
In my judgment there have been only non-answers and evasions so far.

Really? Because as I count, ICANT has been provided with a number of possible answers which I would spell out roughly as follows:

1) Not every natural thing requires a cause. Quantum mechanics provides examples of things that are not caused.
2) Time was created with the universe and therefore question about what existed before are meaningless.
3) The net energy of the universe is zero thus the requirement of a supernatural being to provide energy is not a requirement at all.
4) Colliding branes from another universe created the big bang.

Have there been responses to these ideas that are of any substance? Or are all of those ideas simple evasions?


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 502 by Admin, posted 12-22-2015 9:54 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 504 by Admin, posted 12-22-2015 12:00 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12433
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 504 of 511 (774775)
12-22-2015 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 503 by NoNukes
12-22-2015 11:39 AM


Re: Moderator Provided Information, a Question, and the Topic
NoNukes writes:

How does the universe having a beginning imply the existence of a supernatural being?

Surely we've heard enough of the 'existence beginning to exist' explanation not to ask to hear it again.

In my judgment there have been only non-answers and evasions so far.

Really? Because as I count, ICANT has been provided with a number of possible answers which I would spell out roughly as follows:
...

I meant that there have only been non-answers and evasions in response to the "existence beginning to exist" explanations. Some of those explanations have been very clear, others have been brief or cryptic. These latter explanations were likely clear enough to those with some familiarity with the subject, but not to others, and taken together with all the other explanations I can see them causing more confusion than clarity.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 503 by NoNukes, posted 12-22-2015 11:39 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5563
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 505 of 511 (774806)
12-23-2015 3:07 AM
Reply to: Message 500 by Admin
12-22-2015 7:50 AM


Re: Moderator Provided Information, a Question, and the Topic
Hi Admin

Admin writes:

If everything has to be created by something already in existence, why isn't this also true of the supernatural being proposed as the creator of the universe?

The Supernatural power is supernatural not natural.
Therefore the Supernatural power would be an eternal entity.
That Supernatural entity would not be subject to any natural laws.

If as NoNukes says our universe was created by two branes banging together and they were supplied by an earlier universe. Those two branes would have to have been able to supply all the energy necessary to create our universe. Those branes would exist outside of our universe. I have been ridiculed and assured there is nothing outside of our universe.

But if that process had been going on eternally in the past there would be no usable energy left.

Admin writes:

•How does the universe having a beginning imply the existence of a supernatural being?

It doesn't just imply it. It requires there be a supernatural power whether it be Brian Greene's branes or Hartley/Hawkings instanton that they dreamed up to remove the need for a beginning to exist of our universe. Neither of which is more than a hypothesis.

Or whether my Supernatural Power which I call God supplied all the energy necessary to form our present universe.

Both of these would have to exist outside of our universe. Which would mean they existed in something. That something would be existence as they would have had to exist. That would require space and duration.

Yet several here assure me that nothing exists outside of our universe.

In my first message Message 46 I said:

quote:
Scientific fact: The universe has not always existed.
Scientific fact: The universe had a beginning to exist.
Scientific fact: The universe exists.

Before the universe there would have been an absence of anything. No space, time, matter, energy, or vacuum, as all those began to exist when the universe began to exist.

Now whatever caused the universe to have a beginning to exist from an absence of anything would be a supernatural power.

I call that supernatural power God, what do you call it?


You can call that supernatural power Brian Greene's branes or Hartly/Hawking's instanton but if they existed they would have been supernatural as they are not a part of this universe.

Since they exist outside of our universe there is no way to know if they existed or not. Nothing is known past T=0 plus 1 billionth of a second.

But if they existed they would be supernatural.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 500 by Admin, posted 12-22-2015 7:50 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 506 by Admin, posted 12-23-2015 7:33 AM ICANT has responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12433
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


(2)
Message 506 of 511 (774816)
12-23-2015 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 505 by ICANT
12-23-2015 3:07 AM


Re: Moderator Provided Information, a Question, and the Topic
Hi ICANT,

My first reaction is that what people have been explaining to you is either becoming garbled and confused in your mind, or you're getting them all wrong on purpose. Whether it's due to your level of comprehension or is purposeful makes no difference, because in either case it would be pointless to continue with more explanations.

My second reaction is that I should at least respond to the simple errors.

ICANT writes:

I have been ridiculed and assured there is nothing outside of our universe.

No, you have not been assured that "there is nothing outside of our universe." Different models have been discussed. Modulous makes one model pretty clear in Message 495, saying that *if* you define a model where the universe is synonymous with existence, then nothing can exist outside the universe (you didn't reply). NoNukes lists four different models that have been offered in Message 503.

But rather than discuss any particular model you have instead constructed within your mind some confused combination.

You can call that supernatural power Brian Greene's branes or Hartly/Hawking's instanton but if they existed they would have been supernatural as they are not a part of this universe.

You're unlikely to have success convincing people to switch to your nomenclature. At the moment branes are theoretical, not supernatural, and if evidence for branes is identified then they will be considered natural, not supernatural.

When you say whatever created the universe must be supernatural you're saying it with all the same absence of evidence as when cavemen peered out into a storm and declared that whatever created lightning must be supernatural.

Please, no replies to this message, except to correct my mistakes. If I've misdescribed or misrepresented someone's views or any scientific idea then please let me know.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 505 by ICANT, posted 12-23-2015 3:07 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 510 by ICANT, posted 12-25-2015 12:20 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 9284
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 507 of 511 (774827)
12-23-2015 12:40 PM


Faith & Belief Based Arguments
One of the major stumbling blocks that I see in this thread is the effort to support Faith & Belief based arguments through self contrived "scientific" argumentation.

We all know that I CANT is a theologian and that this particular topic is in the Faith & Belief section of the Forum. If logical scientific arguments are presented, however, standard protocol is to provide reasonable evidence for such arguments. I agree with Admin in this regard and see the problem. In defense of I CANT, I imagine that he is sincerely attempting to present a logical argument in defense of the universe having a supernatural cause but finds his tires spinning when crossing over from Faith/Belief (and in his mind logic) to the more disciplined scientific methodology required for reasoned argumentation. Forum Guidelines stipulate

quote:
Points should be supported with evidence and reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.

Perhaps we should examine I CANTS source of reasoning. Many of us Theological types have a sincere interest in "enlightening" others of the reality and majesty of God, Creator of all seen and unseen. We even go so far as to pray for wisdom and the ability to express the "truth" in a way so as to enlighten others. Perhaps at times our fervent belief in Gods infinite wisdom coupled with our belief that our prayers for enlightenment be fulfilled may blind us to how the discussion is actually progressing.

Admin writes:

You're unlikely to have success convincing people to switch to your nomenclature.

This simple fact requires us (we theologians) to switch gears in this Faith&Belief discussion.

Since we are discussing "The Beginning" and what occurred BEFORE all that we know and experience as life began, we would need to seek insight either through the Bible(Logos) or through Rhema wisdom. The problem is, Rhema wisdom (which we believe to be Gods direct input of wisdom) still requires Rule 4 of the Forum Guidelines at least as far as EvC discussions go.

I have a high level of respect for the arguments presented so far.

Message 495 gives a reasonable argument that "The universe didn't come from some place or time. It's existence itself". As a monotheist, I see this as more of a pantheistic statement and would argue that insofar as time, space and existence are concerned, time and space can be combined (spacetime) but to throw existence into that mix is stretching my beliefs and worldview. Thus again the question: Is a Creator required for our consensus on a model?

When you say whatever created the universe must be supernatural you're saying it with all the same absence of evidence as when cavemen peered out into a storm and declared that whatever created lightning must be supernatural.
This sums up Belief over Evidence, and the problems associated with such type of thinking.

Arguments (models) can be presented either way.

Im still reading some of the responses so I wont directly participate until I have grasped each of your arguments and proposed theories.

Edited by Phat, : clarification

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain

Replies to this message:
 Message 508 by Admin, posted 12-23-2015 1:56 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12433
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 508 of 511 (774830)
12-23-2015 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 507 by Phat
12-23-2015 12:40 PM


Re: Faith & Belief Based Arguments
Phat writes:

We all know that I CANT is a theologian and that this particular topic is in the Faith & Belief section of the Forum. If logical scientific arguments are presented, however, standard protocol is to provide reasonable evidence for such arguments. I agree with Admin in this regard and see the problem. In defense of I CANT, I imagine that he is sincerely attempting to present a logical argument in defense of the universe having a supernatural cause but finds his tires spinning when crossing over from Faith/Belief (and in his mind logic) to the more disciplined scientific methodology required for reasoned argumentation.

Yes, I think you're right. Way back in Message 286 I asked ICANT, "Are you arguing from theology, or from physical evidence?" He didn't respond to the question, only saying that he was addressing the opening post, and restating his position.

Arguments from a theological position belong here in the religious forums, and arguments from a scientific position belong in the science forums, but I will register no objections if ICANT wants to argue scientifically here in this religious thread. But if ICANT is going to make scientific arguments, then he must in turn accept scientific rebuttals.

The argument that, "I've shown that science has no consensus answer at this time, therefore it must be supernatural," makes no sense scientifically. If ICANT wants to make scientific arguments here then he must accept this.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 507 by Phat, posted 12-23-2015 12:40 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 509 by ICANT, posted 12-25-2015 11:24 AM Admin has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5563
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 509 of 511 (774942)
12-25-2015 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 508 by Admin
12-23-2015 1:56 PM


Re: Faith & Belief Based Arguments
Hi Admin,

Admin writes:

"Are you arguing from theology, or from physical evidence?"

All 5367 post I have made on EvC is from a theological viewpoint.

The subject of the OP I have been addressing is:

quote:
Do you think Gods are manmade or do you believe in a supernatural God?

I gave my reasons for that belief in my first post in this thread.
Message 46

There is no scientific physical evidence as to the beginning to exist of the universe.

Therefore any discussion of the beginning to exist of the universe is either theological or Metaphysical.

Admin writes:

If ICANT wants to make scientific arguments here then he must accept this.

I have not proposed a scientific argument. I have made metaphysical arguments and theological arguments.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 508 by Admin, posted 12-23-2015 1:56 PM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 511 by Admin, posted 12-25-2015 8:22 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5563
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 510 of 511 (774946)
12-25-2015 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 506 by Admin
12-23-2015 7:33 AM


Re: Moderator Provided Information, a Question, and the Topic
Hi Admin,

Admin writes:

No, you have not been assured that "there is nothing outside of our universe." Different models have been discussed. Modulous makes one model pretty clear in Message 495, saying that *if* you define a model where the universe is synonymous with existence, then nothing can exist outside the universe (you didn't reply). NoNukes lists four different models that have been offered in Message 503.

But rather than discuss any particular model you have instead constructed within your mind some confused combination.

I will give a few of the assurances I have been given that there is nothing outside of the universe.

Message 21

cavediver writes:

In this case, you have to realise that the Big Bang is not something that occurs *in* space. It is the entirety of space. And so your extraplolation is invalid at the first step.

Message 108

cavediver writes:

Now did you not explain to me how that the universe was self contained and that everything was inside the universe and there was no thing outside the universe?

Yes, I'm sure I did say this. And you still completely fail to understand it.

This states everything in existence, exists inside of the universe.

So why haven't I been assured there is nothing outside of the universe?

Is cavediver wrong?

There are several other places that supports there is nothing outside of our universe.

Admin writes:

Different models have been discussed.

String theory so called has been proposed. But string theory is not a theory it is only a hypothesis.

A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon.

For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it.

How can you test anything prior to the point General Relativity breaks down?

Nothing is known about that point.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 506 by Admin, posted 12-23-2015 7:33 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

    
RewPrev1
...
30313233
34
35Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017